Tbh I don't consider either of those things to be unique to or ubiquitous for colleges.

And ja gotta give it to elph on the auto-fellatio in this regard falling much more on the right.

For every half a brain crazy religious conservative, there is a crazy organic eat the placenta liberal. Show us the stats to support your claim please.

There does need to be a clarification on what you mean by liberals I guess. But the left certainly argue from a place of personal experience and abstract niceties. The right isn't perfect, but I'd say there's a lot more of an attempt to keep things within a factual realm as opposed to feelings on their side.

The bolded is super duper removed from personal experience ya know.

And idk if I'd ever accuse either side of trying to keep things in the factual realm. If you are firmly on one side or another and firmly identify as such, you are no friend of fact.

I mean I like "Taxman" but it's definitely partially a not entirely successful attempt at a "real" rock song from a pop band.

Nah. Just nah. Most people in general are full of **** at least 50% of the time. If one side is better about it then both sides are still **** in general.

Creationists? Climate change deniers?

I wouldn't put those two in the same breath. Most conservatives aren't legit Creationists afaik, even if they're still religious. But climate change denying is basically required, at least in America.

When did you start posting more than 5 word responses? I like the new elph im seeing.

He's also discovered the quote feature.

Great news.

That would be very reasonable if our left wasn't also a laughing stock of the world.

You just don't stick around long enough for him to edit his posts.

I guess he isn't posting on a cellphone. Props.

Not so much.

This gets repeated regularly but it doesn't add up. The right is way into their feelings on numerous topics but are constantly tossing around the snowflake insult when it applies to them. Tomi Lahren and people on the right that agrees with her rants are a perfect example. Anti abortionists are super into their feelings and use personal experience. As TH mentioned earlier, climate change deniers. People that are against safety net programs bring up their personal experiences of that one time they saw someone on food stamps buying lobster so they lump it in with the suspicions of mass welfare fraud going on.

I guess by their very nature conservatives are about older policies because of an emotional attachment to tradition, whereas liberals are about newer policies based on newer thinking, but people are still ****heads, and nothing is that cut-and-dried so...

Confirmation bias is the greatest opponent of critical thinking

Couldn't you just hold it in till you got to the toilet? :yikes:

1 year and 3k posts. That's some serious ****.

Now is this based on your own personal opinion, or did you did a study on this?

Can you link some?? I know I made a wiseass post before, but I'm interested in seeing actual evidence of this.

Maybe not English? It's spelt "knowledgeable" not "knowledgble." If you want to retain you Leftist membership you should start writing at least on a fifth grade level.

This is a funny post but read it again :D

Skitt’s Law?

*your

Conservatives are rubbish just to clarify.

I did that cause...

1. I struggle with dyslexia.
2. I did that on purpose to (you know) fulfill Skitt’s Law.
3. I wanted to out all the grammar nazis.

Issa Rae at the Emmys: ‘I’m Rooting for Everybody Black’ | Variety

There are some whiny people calling Issa Rae racist for this statement. "I'm rooting for everybody black."

What are your opinions?

The main go to phrase people are griping about is that if someone said "I'm rooting for everybody white." There would be a huge deal. I'll add my comments in a bit.

I think she would, and she can root for anyone she wants to. Why are obvious things so controversial?

Donald Glover is a good choice imo.

yeah, atlanta is great. award shows are dumb anyway and so are the old ass white men who run them.

Oops I missed this but you are 100 percent correct.

Regarding Issa Rae, I understand why she would say that regarding the nominees. Donald Glover ended up being the first black director to ever win and Lena Wraithe ended up being the first black woman to win for writing in a comedy. This isn't a case of just being nominated for their skin color for diversity. They were nominated based off of merit.

I usually do an Emmys post to pick winners ahead of time but I didn't this year. The amount of love Big Little Lies and Handmaiden's Tale got was a bit much but I do love that Ann Dowd won an emmy. She should have for her Leftovers performance. Atlanta was great and deserved the awards it won along with Sterling K Brown.

Do you think that making a big to do out of "first black whatever", is good for race relations? While i understand the importance it can have for the black community, given the history here, i think stuff like that is generally dumb to even recognize. It feels very much like an everyone gets a trophy situation. Unless its some monumental achievement like going to space i tend to not care at all, so im definitely bias here.

I love that show but I'm the only person I know that watches it. This and Rick & Morty are my ****. I re-watch them all the time.

What is wrong with it? I think it is good to know positive figures from the past.

PBS Nova S34E08 Forgotten Genius
Percy Lavon Julian

:laughing:

Not sure whether it's racist. It is a bit pathetic though.

They made a point of mentioning it was the most diverse list of nominees for the third year running. They probably were nominated for their skin colour.

.

Nothing is wrong with acknowledging positive figures, but being black is a neutral quality. Lets focus more on the excellence of the individual and less on their race, gender, disability, etc.

I just feel attaching things like first black, woman, whatever, detract from acknowledging the merits of the achievement and subconsciously aid in promoting segregation.

It was a joke by Stephen Colbert in the opening monolog mostly making fun of the whole Oscars so white situation that happened two years ago.

You feel like it detracts and I feel like it actually adds to it the win. It acknowledges their merit while also acknowledging the fact that they were able to excel AND win in a ceremony that usually doesn't recognize the work of that race. I don't feel see why you can't focus on black excellence or any other race, gender or disability that you want to push forward.

If that was a joke I missed it. It was the most diverse for the third year running though wasn't it?

Because I don't view that as progression. I totally acknowledge your point in how they are able to excel in something when they are at a disadvantage because of some social construct, but what good does that do in resolving the deep-rooted segregation of the society? The only reason race is even acknowledged in this instance is because there isn't some "greater handicap" in the running to cheer about.. Do you see "first black" whatever in the special Olympics? Nope, because they don't recognize race in that event. I want society to reach a point where achievements are congratulated based on the merits they represent.. Attaching anything extra to it just slows social progression.

If you want to have rewards/ceremonies for specific groups or whatever, go right ahead, but making a big to do out of a specific winner in an open field because of something other than what the award is meant to represent is not a good thing imo.